Which Canon/3rd party lens has the BEST color, contrast, sharpness and AF consistency

I was looking at DXOmark and was wondering how accurate the scores are. I believe I already have some of the best lenses in my arsenal - e.g. 100L, 135L, Siggy 35 1.4 etc, but i just want to know if there are even better buys for the same money i'm putting on my gear right now.

i have a couple of dilemmas right now :

1. the s35 i just bought puts my s24-70 HSM to great shame. should i just sell the 24-70 and use s35 as my primary lens for travel purposes? Or should i get a 24-70II, which would cost a crazy bomb?

1b. I usually use my 100L for casual close-up food shots. although the s35 can only focus up to 30cm (MFD), it seems (or perhaps it's psychological) to be sharper than my 100L. should i sell that away too?

2. 135L was the first magical lens that caught my eye (this position was replaced by my s35 as it's equally sharp and more versatile, albeit less pleasing compression). Again, for travel purposes - which should i use?
- 135L
- 70-200 f4 IS
- 70-200 f2.8L IS
- 70-200 II

i have the 70-200 v1 and 135L, but the former is kind of too heavy for my liking. Having that said, i can't make up my mind because i'm a perfectionist that demands the best quality i can squeeze from my gear.

3. are there other lenses which can rival or outperform the color/contrast/sharpne​ss/AF consistency in the s35? name me any prime/zoom under 200mm (not interested in the 200mm prime though, lol).

thanks!

DXOmark rated Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC rating is higher then canon f2.8 IS II version.

sandeepsaman wrote in post #15847390
DXOmark rated Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC rating is higher then canon f2.8 IS II version.

does that mean it should be taken with a pinch of salt?

First of all what type of traveling are you doing? Also when not traveling what do you like to shoot?
Of course this is all personal and only you will really know what you might miss if you get rid of lens but here is my take on it.

1) can you get by with just using 35mm when traveling or do you like the versatility of the zoom having 24 wide angle and longer reach. Do you use it wide open a lot or do you stop down? I know I usually use my 24-105 when traveling and bring along my 35L. For night stuff if I am in a city. (personal note, I can use my 35L and not use a zoom but that is how much I have used my 35 so I just see in that frame.) If you wouldn't mind not having the 24-70 I see no point in keeping it, if it is disappointing you.

1b) I don't own the 100L although it is a macro so it will be incredibly sharp (again can't really say since I don't own a Sig35 or the 100L) and will have a flat field. If you use it at all for the macro 1:1 spectrum then you have no choice but to keep it since the 35 won't do that. Not only that they are made for completely different purposes. You said you're using it for close-up food shots...does that mean you using it in a more 1:1 or 2:1 ratio, etc..? Do you shoot anything else which macro is used for. If you are not using it for such purposes then I'd might consider getting rid of it but not because the 35 can do "close-up" shot of food.

2) I love my 135L and I almost always bring it when I go out and shoot just my style... Anyways I would use that for travel since it is light weight and not WHITE like the 70-200s. Also it is one of the best lens that canon has made.

Last one I can't really comment since I don't have a lot experience with non OEM lenses.

So you asked for some opinions so there is mine hope it helps.

Since getting the 24-70ii my sig 35 has been on my camera once. If you're after the best get on it and ditch your v1 70-200 and get the v2.

my replies in red!

nWmR12 wrote in post #15847533
First of all what type of traveling are you doing? Also when not traveling what do you like to shoot?
Of course this is all personal and only you will really know what you might miss if you get rid of lens but here is my take on it.

1) can you get by with just using 35mm when traveling or do you like the versatility of the zoom having 24 wide angle and longer reach. Do you use it wide open a lot or do you stop down? I know I usually use my 24-105 when traveling and bring along my 35L. For night stuff if I am in a city. (personal note, I can use my 35L and not use a zoom but that is how much I have used my 35 so I just see in that frame.) If you wouldn't mind not having the 24-70 I see no point in keeping it, if it is disappointing you.

most of the times i'll yearn for the wide end when i don't have it (24mm). i use my lenses wide open 90% of the time, with 10% on f11 for HDR purposes.

the 24-70 siggy doesn't disappoint, just that it pales in comparison now that i've seen what a stellar lens like the s35 can do. i've never tried using a 35mm prime solely for travel and don't feel confident in doing so.. but then again the IQ is going to leave my mind blown if i use it. what a dilemma!


1b) I don't own the 100L although it is a macro so it will be incredibly sharp (again can't really say since I don't own a Sig35 or the 100L) and will have a flat field. If you use it at all for the macro 1:1 spectrum then you have no choice but to keep it since the 35 won't do that. Not only that they are made for completely different purposes. You said you're using it for close-up food shots...does that mean you using it in a more 1:1 or 2:1 ratio, etc..? Do you shoot anything else which macro is used for. If you are not using it for such purposes then I'd might consider getting rid of it but not because the 35 can do "close-up" shot of food.

99% of the time, my 100L is used for close-up (2:1) shots of food. 1% for abstract objects.

2) I love my 135L and I almost always bring it when I go out and shoot just my style... Anyways I would use that for travel since it is light weight and not WHITE like the 70-200s. Also it is one of the best lens that canon has made.

the last time i brought that, i lamented not bringing my 70-200 because it wasn't long enough for my travel needs (e.g going to the zoo). then again it's an IQ + weight issue. 135L gets my mind blown and 70-200 v1 is just so-so relatively speaking + heavy.

Last one I can't really comment since I don't have a lot experience with non OEM lenses.

So you asked for some opinions so there is mine hope it helps.

El Pedro wrote in post #15847560
Since getting the 24-70ii my sig 35 has been on my camera once. If you're after the best get on it and ditch your v1 70-200 and get the v2.

i've been looking at the 24-70ii reviews, but so far it has not impressed me enough to spend that much $ ( more than 2x the s35) to get similar IQ..

the.forumer wrote in post #15847969
i've been looking at the 24-70ii reviews, but so far it has not impressed me enough to spend that much $ ( more than 2x the s35) to get similar IQ..

It's 2x the cost for similar IQ, but you get 47x more focal lengths to use that have similar IQ! Granted, there is no f1.4, but still, you get prime image quality and all the flexibility of a zoom.

the.forumer wrote in post #15847969
i've been looking at the 24-70ii reviews, but so far it has not impressed me enough to spend that much $ ( more than 2x the s35) to get similar IQ..

you really cant compare a zoom with a prime, one cant displace the other.

the best is the 24-70mk2, but tamron is very very close as well:

http://www.dxomark.com …le-pro-worthy-alternative

color rendition is at least L quality. A bit better than the canon non L usm primes.